Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cannabis sativa plant (4).JPG

File:Cannabis sativa plant (4).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2010 at 13:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/File:Cannabis sativa plant (4).JPG Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cannabis sativa plant (4).JPG

•  Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Tlusťa -- Tlusťa (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Plant of Cannabis sativa
•  Support -- Tlusťa (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose Firstly I'm just gonna lay my bias against featuring images of recreational drugs right on the table (a high quality image of a cancer or glaucoma patient smoking, breathing vapor or w/e NP and would be much more interesting than another "legalize it now!" style picture of a pot plant or leaf), aside from that it's kind of cut off and not framed well, though the lighting's good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, images of cancer will be useful for projects as well, however I do not have access to people or they biopsy organs with tumor. If you will make me opportunity to photograph them, I will try my best do FP/QI of they tumor too. I already tried to make access to dissecting-room of one Uni, but due to personal rights of families it failed. This time, I had possibility to make images of plant, so I did it. I am trying to make good images of everything which has some value for us or has article on Wikipedia. So I believe this voting is about this image, not about philosophy if I/you agree with object of image or not and it is sad when somebody/you evaluated on the basis of his/her position to drugs. But if you voted against for reason, that you don't like the crop or composition, OK, that's fair and I accept it. I will try next time make better image, every day it is about learning how to do good images. --Chmee2 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant it would be interesting to see some HQ slice of life usages of pot medicinally. Since the '60s hippies have been talking about how medicinal pot is, science sometimes agrees with them, yet, all we ever see is people smoking for fun and to rebel. I want to see it in a light we can all agree on. =) (I could just imagine "Legalize it!" in yellow graffiti font on the upper right lol)
 Neutral per MPF and my comments about the composition and that for something possibly controversial it should be really interesting somehow. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Support - Good pic. I don't see anything here suggesting a "legalize it now!" POV; the pic might just as likely get used in production of a police training manual to help enforcement officers identify the plant in their work. - MPF (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't care about the subject matter, but green-on-green composition is not ideal for an educational photo. Steven Walling 20:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose - crop and composition not ideal. Jonathunder (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Opposeagree with Steven --AngMoKio (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I would prefer better composition.. or may-be a more creative crop of this image.. Ggia (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Neutral Beautiful pic, but not featurable as other said. Aside this, we are here to estimate the picture quality, if someone don't want cannabis to be legally consumed in his country, simply ask his government to prohibit it. It has nothing to do with Commons. --Phyrexian (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't see here anything like an advertisement for cannabis use. Cannabis sativa indica is a plant, as papaver somniferum album or others. But I completely agree with Steven Walling about the quality. A very good pic of this kind of plant can naturally be featured here IMO, but I think it is not the case here, unfortunately.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)